Read this. Here is the third of three comments:
Everything you write about "the torture president" is indisputably true and I would simply like to add a couple of points. Some questions for defenders of "enhanced interrogation". (1) Why would a person dedicated to bin Laden confess to being a terrorist or to having knowledge of bin Laden's whereabouts if the interrogations amounted to less than torture? (2) According to Bush, his highest duty is to the security of the country, and that exceeds even his commitment to individual rights. "Enhanced interrogation" is justified on a purely utilitarian basis. In that case, given the time-honored principle that what you propose doing to others, you should be willing to have others do unto you", what would Bush have done had bin Laden offered to turn himself in provided that Bush subjected Laura to three weeks of publicly verified "enhanced interrogation" that included waterboarding? Sidney Gendin, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor, Philosophy of Law Eastern Michigan University
Let's apply Dr Gendin's "time-honored principle" to him. His parents, siblings, wife, children, and grandchildren have been kidnapped by terrorists, who threaten to torture and kill them if their demands are not met. Authorities have one of the terrorists in custody, but he won't disclose the location of the family members. If Dr Gendin thinks that torture is categorically wrong, then he is committed, logically, to opposing the torture of the terrorist, even if it means that his entire family will be tortured and killed. Indeed, suppose the authorities contact Dr Gendin and ask him what they should do. Dr Gendin, to avoid hypocrisy, must forbid them to torture the terrorist.
